Representation by Barford and Wramplingham Parish Council (Barford and Wramplingham Parish Council)
- Date submitted
- 6 November 2022
- Submitted by
- Parish councils
Barford and Wramplingham PC objects in the strongest way possible to this DCO application as follows: 1. Lack of proper consideration by the Applicant of an alternative, more appropriate, grid connection point The Applicant claimed, continuously, and we consider unjustly, through the consultation process that it was unable to change the grid connection point set by National Grid. The most appropriate grid connection for this project is at the Walpole substation but the applicant failed to fully consider this option despite being requested to do so during the consultation phase. 2. Need for the ExA to require the attendance of National Grid at the Hearings, to be interrogated on their actions by the ExA, in public, during the examination process National Grid should be asked to explain which alternative connection points were considered in reaching a decision about the grid connection for this project and the extent to which the impact on the environment and communities was taken into account. 3. Recognition, in relation to the work of the OTNR, that SEP/DEP is not an “in-flight” project 4. The onshore in-combination, cumulative impacts of SEP/DEP’s landfall, substation and cable corridor construction, are unacceptable when considered alongside the already consented Hornsea Three, Vanguard and Boreas projects, and other national infrastructure projects like the Norwich Western Link road There is enormous concern within the parish about the impact on use of roads, the environment, people’s lives and livelihoods. 5. That the SEP/DEP application should include – as a necessary cumulative impact – the proposed East Anglia Green project, upon the consenting of which it depends 6. The cumulative impact must be considered of the possible future construction of large battery storage facilities to improve the economic viability of the project, as has happened with the Hornsea Three project 7. Unacceptable development scenarios are presented for single project and sequential development. We propose that scenarios 1a, 1b, 1c, 3 and 4 should not be permitted Orsted's Hornsea 3 project and Vattenfall's Vanguard and Boreas projects can bring into Norfolk 2.4 GW and 3.6 GW respectively. We cannot see the justification for the Applicant wanting to dig approximately the same width cable path through Norfolk for a mere 0.338 from SEP or 0.448 GW from DEP (scenarios 1a and 1b). Scenarios 1c, 3 and 4 involve digging up the cable path twice! The huge cost to the environment and disruption to people's lives and livelihoods of these scenarios cannot be justified. 8. We believe that the Applicant has submitted incorrect ecology reports in support of its application 9. The Applicant has not provided a proper explanation of the carbon footprint for each possible project scenario 10. We have been informed at PC meetings that the Applicant has sought to prevent objections to the project via restrictive clauses in heads of terms contract documents with landowners 11. The Applicant should provide clarity with regard to community compensation